If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Back to the original question. I think that this isn't as simple a question as it might at first seem. It might seem fair for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income. Unfortunately, defining "income" has become pretty complicated. Perhaps one should pay a percentage based on what percentage of the national wealth one owns. For 5% to pay 40% of the taxes appears to be grossly unfair, but if that same 5% controls 80% of the nation's wealth, then perhaps it's not so unfair. Maybe the best solution would be a consumption tax (no not for people with TB) that is to say a national sales tax. I don't know. "Fair" share is very difficult to define.

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)

As I read that, the top 5% holds 71% and the top 10% holds 82% of the national wealth. Perhaps carrying somewhat over 40% of the tax burden isn't so outrageous after all. That graphic looks like a recipe for real class warfare to me if it were more widely distributed.

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)

Anybody else notice that the percentages of wealth actually add up to 102% in that graphic?

Yes I noticed, and I assumed it was because the actual percentages not whole numbers but fractions, and that they were rounded up to the next whole number. For example 42.5% was probably rounded up to 43%.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

Huge difference. UB frequently posts things that are completely made up and incorrect at their core. What some would call a bald faced LIE
You are going to compare that to a ROUNDING ERROR?
I was taught in grade school that rounding fractions up or down was acceptable for ease of reference and other purposes. Sometimes that can result in the sum of the parts being greater or lesser than the whole. 102% is well within the realm of possibility with a graph with this many segments

UB on the other hand posts stuff that insults your intelligence it is so whacky.
For instance if he posted up a graph like this it would have some ridiculous premise such as the top wage earners or taxpayers only have1% of the wealth, while they carry 50% of the tax burden. Or if he had a "rounding error" it may make the sum of the parts equal 300 or 400% of the whole

Now if you have some info of substance that says the figures quoted in this chart are grossly inaccurate please share those figures and your sources with us

I wont be holding my breath for you to make any post with substantive knowledge or information, because past experience with you shows that that really ISNT HOW YOU ROLL!!